Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interactions Between Investment Chapters in Mega-Regionals and Bilateral Investment Treaties

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mega-Regional Trade Agreements

Abstract

All of the mega-regionals recently concluded or currently negotiated are envisioned or at least highly likely to, among other subjects, provide for a regulatory framework on foreign investments. Against this background this contribution takes a closer look at some of the specific aspects of interactions between these investment chapters and the in principle by now already traditional treaty-making through the conclusion of bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The first section addresses the factual background and some of the underlying expectations shaping the present discussion on the relationship between investment chapters in mega-regionals and BITs. In the second part an attempt will be made to systemize the various potential connections based on the identification of two main dimensions of interaction between mega-regionals and BITs. Finally, the contribution will provide a kind of bird’s-eye view and some tentative conclusions on the expected consequences of these interactions for the future development of—and scholarly research on—international investment law as a whole.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The contributions on the vertical relationship between the WTO legal order and regional trade agreements are by now more than legion. See for example Bhagwati (2008); Nowrot (2015), p. 126 et seq.; Matsushita et al. (2015), p. 507 et seq.; Bagwell and Mavroidis (2011); Senti (2014), each with numerous further references.

  2. 2.

    Concerning the distinction between “WTO-plus” and “WTO-extra” see already Horn et al. (2010), p. 1567 et seq.; WTO (2011), p. 128 et seq.

  3. 3.

    Generally on the phenomenon of “deep integration” regional trade agreements see also, e.g., Hoekman and Kostecki (2009), p. 502 et seq.; Trebilcock et al. (2013), p. 95 et seq.; Melo Araujo (2014); Melo Araujo (2016), p. 64 et seq.

  4. 4.

    On this perception see also, e.g., Reinisch (2009), p. 417 (“Many of the more recent PTAs contain investment chapters.”); de Mestral and Falsafi (2013), p. 117 (“we may well be seeing the end of RTAs that do not deal with investment issues at all”); Fontanelli and Bianco (2014), p. 213 (“One of the recurrent WTO-extra matters regulated by [free trade agreements (FTAs)] is the protection of foreign investments.”).

  5. 5.

    Specifically on the normative framework of investment protection as stipulated in Chapter 11 NAFTA see for example Puig and Kinnear (2010); Nowrot (2013), p. 85 et seq.; Ranieri (2013), each with further references.

  6. 6.

    On the underlying “shift in treaty-making activity from BITs towards FTAs and other economic integration treaties that combine trade and investment liberalization” see already United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2008), p. 17; as well as more recently for example UNCTAD (2013c), p. 103 et seq. (“Regionalism on the rise”); Bonnitcha (2014), p. 3 et seq.

  7. 7.

    See for example Binder (2013), p. 71 (“Given the growing number of [preferential trade and investment agreements (PTIAs)] (more than 300 in 2011) as well as of BITs (more than 2800 in 2011), the likelihood of their interaction increases. This makes a scrutiny of interaction between PTIAs and BITs particularly important.”); UNCTAD (2013b), p. 4 et seq.; de Brabandere (2013); Alschner (2014); as well as already UNCTAD (2006), p. 132 (“The coexistence of an increasing number of [economic integration investment agreements (EIIAs)] and other types of investment agreements inevitably gives rise to multiple interactions between investment rules at all levels.”). From the perspective of political science see also for example Tobin and Busch (2010).

  8. 8.

    See for example Karmakar (2014).

  9. 9.

    On this perception see also, e.g., Draper et al. (2014), p. 8 (“The term mega regional is used somewhat loosely.”).

  10. 10.

    On these elements as well as for related characterizations of mega-regionals see, e.g., UNCTAD (2014), p. 118; Draper et al. (2014), p. 8; Pauwelyn and Alschner (2015).

  11. 11.

    See thereto also Sect. 2.

  12. 12.

    See in this connection also UNCTAD (2014), p. 121 (“negotiators have to carefully consider the possible interactions between megaregional agreements and other investment treaties”).

  13. 13.

    On these numbers see UNCTAD (2014), p. 119.

  14. 14.

    UNCTAD (2016), p. 101.

  15. 15.

    See thereto also Sect. 3.

  16. 16.

    On this perception see, e.g., Cottier (2014), p. 672 (“from the plurilateral days of GATT, to the multilateral rule based system, and today back to bilateralism and preferential trade agreements and newly emerging forms of plurilateral agreements, in particular the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)”).

  17. 17.

    Lester and Barbee (2013), p. 866.

  18. 18.

    Hufbauer and Cimino-Isaacs (2015), p. 681.

  19. 19.

    Draper et al. (2014), p. 7.

  20. 20.

    Henckels (2016), p. 29.

  21. 21.

    Hamilton (2014), p. 85.

  22. 22.

    Cottier (2014), p. 675 (emphases in the original). See in this regard also for example the respective observations and predictions made by UNCTAD (2014), p. 118 et seq.; Pauwelyn and Alschner (2015); Baumgartner (2016), p. 89; Trakman (2014); Hindelang and Krajewski (2016), p. 383; Lim et al. (2012), p. 3 (“The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) has the potential to become a new model for preferential trade agreements (PTAs).”); as well as for a slightly more cautious view Barbee and Lester (2014), p. 214 (“In the end, the implications of the mega-regional approach, if successful, are not clear. Would success result in a world of competing mega-regions? Would they converge into a global agreement, or serve as the basis for multilateral talks? The effort being expended for these talks is enormous, but will they produce the desired benefits and produce a new ‘high standard’ model? The outcome remains to be seen.”).

  23. 23.

    On this perception see, e.g., UNCTAD (2013c), p. 105 (“The current [international investment agreement (IIA)] regime is known for its complexity and incoherence, gaps and overlaps.”); Kurtz (2014), p. 105 (“highly diffuse with no real common institutional core”); Kurtz (2016), p. 41 (“the failure of the [International Trade Organization (ITO)] marked a fundamental shift away from multilateralism in the coverage of investment issues”); Nowrot (2016a), p. 206; Wu (2014); Pauwelyn (2014a), p. 373 et seq., with further references.

  24. 24.

    For a rather critical account of this predominant approach in the literature see for example Allee and Peinhardt (2014), p. 48 (“Yet the existing empirical literature on BITs continues to treat these investment agreements as homogenous, despite strong reasons to believe otherwise.”).

  25. 25.

    See in particular Schill (2009), p. 15 et seq., with further references.

  26. 26.

    See, e.g., Manger (2013), p. 87 (“It is immediately obvious that there is considerable variation across BITs and across time.”); Alvarez (2011), p. 30 (“these treaties vary in terms of the specific rights provided”). On some important areas of variation across investment agreements see more recently for example Allee and Peinhardt (2014), p. 48 et seq., with further references.

  27. 27.

    On this perception see also, e.g., Jacob (2013), p. 83 (“What one can state with confidence is that there is a noticeable drift at the moment towards more diverse regulation within this area of international activity.”). See in this connection also the observation made in UNCTAD (2014), p. 114 (“The past years brought an increasing dichotomy in investment treaty making: […].”).

  28. 28.

    Miles (2010); Mann (2013). See also UNCTAD (2014), p. 126 (“The IIA regime is undergoing a period of reflection, review and reform.”).

  29. 29.

    Generally on this perception see also, e.g., UNCTAD (2015), p. 12 et seq. (“new generation of investment policies”); Spears (2010). Specifically on the differences between first, second and third generation investment agreements see already Nowrot (2014), p. 620 et seq.

  30. 30.

    Generally on these developments see for example UNCTAD (2016), p. 1 et seq.; UNCTAD (2012), p. 89 et seq.; VanDuzer et al. (2012); the contributions in Cordonier Segger et al. (2011); as well as Dubava (2014); and Nowrot (2014), p. 612 et seq.

  31. 31.

    See, e.g., Tietje (2009), p. 461 (“The need for a ‘policy space’ for governments, i.e. autonomy in national policy-making without constraints by international law and particularly international investment protection law, is one of the most significant consequences of the proliferation of investment law and the fragmentation of international law in general. We are currently witnessing discussions about the necessary policy space in the area of foreign investment, on both the national and international levels.”). See also for example Griebel (2016), p. 106 et seq.; Nowrot (2016a), p. 195 et seq.; as well as the quite comprehensive analyses by Titi (2014), p. 32 et seq.; and Mouyal (2016), p. 8 et seq., each with numerous further references.

  32. 32.

    For a more detailed account of these initiatives Dattu (2000); Schill (2009), p. 31 et seq.; Ziegler (2013), p. 190 et seq.

  33. 33.

    See also for example Sornarajah (2010), p. 81 (“the project to devise a multilateral treaty has floundered”); Subedi (2016), p. 77 (“the idea of concluding a global treaty on foreign investment is still some way off”); Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 11.

  34. 34.

    See thereto already the references in fn. 1.

  35. 35.

    Bungenberg (2013), p. 269; see also for example Alschner (2014), p. 273.

  36. 36.

    See thereto also Sect. 3.2.2.

  37. 37.

    Generally on this underlying purpose pursued by approaches of systemization or categorization see, e.g., Luhmann (1967), p. 618 et seq.; as well as already Bruner et al. (1956), p. 12 (“A first achievement of categorizing has already been discussed. By categorizing as equivalent discriminable different events, the organism reduces the complexity of its environment.”) (emphasis in the original).

  38. 38.

    See Sect. 2.

  39. 39.

    The text of TPP is for example available under https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/panama-tpa/final-text. Accessed 23 June 2016.

  40. 40.

    See thereto also UNCTAD (2013c), p. 105 et seq.; Alschner (2014), pp. 279 and 298.

  41. 41.

    See thereto also already Sect. 2.

  42. 42.

    On this perception see, e.g., UNCTAD (2013c), p. 106 et seq. (“Parallelism is also at the heart of systemic problems of overlap, inconsistency and the concomitant lack of transparency and predictability arising from a multi-faceted, multi-layered IIA regime. It adds yet another layer of obligations and further complicates countries’ ability to navigate the complex spaghetti bowl of treaties and pursue a coherent, focused IIA strategy.”); UNCTAD (2016), p. 114.

  43. 43.

    UNCTAD (2014), p. 121 et seq.

  44. 44.

    For a more in-depth discussion of these legal challenges specifically with regard to overlapping investment agreements see for example more recently Alschner (2014); Binder (2013); as well as already UNCTAD (2006), p. 132 et seq.

  45. 45.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (opened for signature 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 Jan 1980) 1155 UNTS 331. Specifically on the customary international law status of the means of treaty interpretation as stipulated in the Articles 31 to 33 VCLT see also for example Saluka Investments BV v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (17 Mar 2006). http://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/963. Accessed 29 Nov 2016, para. 296; Weeramantry (2012), p. 24.

  46. 46.

    On the customary international law status of these provisions see for example Kohen and Heathcote (2011), paras 7 et seq.; Chapaux (2011), para. 4.

  47. 47.

    Generally on this type of treaty provisions see, e.g., Matz-Lück (2006), paras 1 et seq.; Aust (2013), p. 194 et seq.

  48. 48.

    See, e.g., Article 25 of the Agreement among the Government of Japan, the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Promotion, Facilitation and Protection of Investment (signed 13 May 2012, entered into force 17 May 2014). http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/. Accessed 29 Nov 2016; Article 4 of the Agreement between the EFTA States and Singapore (signed 26 June 2002, entered into force 1 Jan 2003). http://www.efta.int. Accessed 14 Sept 2016.

  49. 49.

    See for example Article 32.3 of the Investment Agreement for the COMESA Common Investment Area (signed 23 May 2007). http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/. Accessed 29 Nov 2016.

  50. 50.

    On this approach in investment treaty practice see, e.g., Article 16 of the Energy Charter Treaty (signed 17 December 1994). http://www.energycharter.org/. Accessed 29 Nov 2016.

  51. 51.

    See for example Article 2(3) of Chapter 18 (Final Provisions) of the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN–Australia–New Zealand Free Trade Area (signed 27 Feb 2009). http://www.asean.org/. Accessed 29 Nov 2016.

  52. 52.

    See thereto from the realm of international dispute settlement practice for example WTO, Indonesia—Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, Panel Report (2 July 1998) WT/DS54, 55, 59, 64/R, para. 14.28; WTO, Turkey—Restrictions on Imports of Textiles and Clothing Products, Panel Report (31 May 1999) WT/DS34/R, paras 9.92 et seq.; as well as, e.g., Jenks (1953), p. 427 et seq.; Jennings and Watts (1992), p. 1275; Pauwelyn (2003), p. 240 et seq.; Nowrot (2006), p. 563; Finke (2014), p. 421.

  53. 53.

    Generally on this provision see, e.g., International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi (13 Apr 2006) UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, paras 410 et seq.; Gardiner (2015), p. 289 et seq.; Dörr (2012), paras 89 et seq.; specifically on the function of this means of interpretation in the context of international investment law see for example Wälde (2009), p. 769 et seq.

  54. 54.

    Specifically on the respective limits of the interpretative rule of Article 31(3)(c) VCLT in the context of interactions between investment agreements see Alschner (2014), p. 296 et seq.; Binder (2013), p. 77.

  55. 55.

    On the underlying distinction between a narrow and a wide notion of conflict of treaties see, e.g., Matz-Lück (2010), paras 5 et seq.; International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi (13 Apr 2006) UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, paras 21 et seq.; Pauwelyn (2006), para. 38.

  56. 56.

    For a general account of this provision see for example Odendahl (2012), paras 21 et seq.; see also, e.g., Dahm et al. (2002), p. 692 et seq.; Ranganathan (2014), p. 454 et seq., each with numerous further references.

  57. 57.

    See for example Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability (30 Nov 2012), paras 4.182 et seq.; Reinisch (2012), p. 174 et seq. Generally thereto as well as on the legal issues arising in connection with intra-EU BITs see also, e.g., EUREKO B.V. v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension (26 Oct 2010), paras 57 et seq., 217 et seq.; Eastern Sugar B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, SCC No. 088/2004, Partial Award (27 Mar 2007), paras 115 et seq.; Söderlund (2007); Wehland (2009); Burgstaller (2011), p. 71 et seq.; Hindelang (2012); Yotova (2013); Mariani (2014).

  58. 58.

    On the lex specialis maxim and its applicability as a rule aimed at solving conflicts between treaties in international law see, e.g., Borgen (2012), p. 466 et seq.; Boyle and Chinkin (2007), p. 252 et seq.; Michaels and Pauwelyn (2011), p. 33 et seq.; International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi (13 Apr 2006) UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, paras 56 et seq.; see however also Matz-Lück (2006), para. 3 (“the existence and extent of international customary law providing for a lex posterior or a lex specialis rule are disputed”) (emphases in the original); as well as for a rather critical account Klabbers (2013), p. 56. For an overview of additional rules and maxims potentially applicable to treaty norm conflicts see for example Odendahl (2012), para. 2, with further references.

  59. 59.

    UNCTAD (2013c), p. 106.

  60. 60.

    See in particular the de facto parallel proceedings involving the same investment dispute in the cases Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (3 Sept 2001). http://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/611. Accessed 29 Nov 2016; and CME Czech Republic B.V. (The Netherlands) v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (14 Mar 2003). http://www.italaw.com/cases/281. Accessed 29 Nov 2016; see thereto also for example Brower and Sharpe (2003); de Ly et al. (2005); Reinisch (2011), paras 16 et seq.

  61. 61.

    On this type of provisions see also, e.g., Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 531 et seq.; Alschner (2014), p. 291 et seq.

  62. 62.

    Consolidated CETA Text published on 29 February 2016, available under <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/february/tradoc_154329.pdf> accessed 23 June 2016.

  63. 63.

    On the principle of lis pendens and the respective challenges involving its application to international investment arbitration proceedings see for example Reinisch (2004), p. 48 et seq.; Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 509 et seq.; Wehland (2013), p. 167 et seq.

  64. 64.

    For a general account of this principle in public international law see, e.g., Shany (2003), p. 245 et seq.; Dodge (2006), paras 3 et seq.; Shaw (2014), p. 71 et seq. Specifically on its potential in the realm of investment arbitration proceedings see for example Wehland (2013), p. 167 et seq.; as well as from the perspective of arbitral practice more recently the discussion of this concept in Apotex Holdings Inc./Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award (25 August 2014), paras 7.1 et seq.

  65. 65.

    See thereto Shany (2003), p. 260 et seq.; Shany (2007), p. 166 et seq.; Binder (2013), p. 79; Crawford (2014), p. 298 et seq.

  66. 66.

    Generally on the regulatory content of this provision see, e.g., Giegerich (2012), paras 8 et seq., with numerous further references.

  67. 67.

    See thereto already Sect. 3.1.1.

  68. 68.

    See, e.g., Eastern Sugar B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, SCC No. 088/2004, Partial Award (27 Mar 2007), paras 156 et seq.; Oostergetel and Laurentius v. Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction (30 Apr 2010), paras 72 et seq.; EUREKO B.V. v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension (26 Oct 2010), paras 231 et seq.; as well as Reinisch (2012), p. 159 et seq.

  69. 69.

    This approach finds its manifestation, among others, in Annex 10-E of the Australia–Chile Free Trade Agreement (signed 30 July 2008, entered into force 6 Mar 2009, and terminating the BIT concluded between the parties on 9 July 1996). http://dfat.gov.au. Accessed 14 Sept 2016. Additional respective stipulations include Article 9.17 of the Republic of Korea–Peru Free Trade Agreement (signed 14 Nov 2010, entered into force 1 Aug 2011). http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/. Accessed 29 Nov 2016; Article 10.20 of the Free Trade Agreement between Peru and Singapore (signed 29 May 2008, entered into force 1 Aug 2009). http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/. Accessed 29 Nov 2016; as well as already Article 21.4 of the Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Chile (signed 15 Feb 2003, entered into force 1 Apr 2004). http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/. Accessed 29 Nov 2016. See thereto also, e.g., Voon et al. (2014), p. 452; Nowrot (2016b), p. 247 et seq.

  70. 70.

    EU–Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (text published 1 Feb 2016). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437. Accessed on 14 February 2017.

  71. 71.

    EU–Singapore Free Trade Agreement (authentic text as of May 2015). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=961. Accessed on 14 February 2017.

  72. 72.

    UNCTAD (2012), p. 85; UNCTAD (2011), p. 100 et seq.

  73. 73.

    On the respective legal framework under secondary Union law see Regulation (EU) No. 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 Establishing Transitional Arrangements for Bilateral Investment Agreements between Member States and Third Countries, OJ L 351/40. Generally on the treaty-making powers of the EU in the field of foreign direct investments and the debate over the legal status of extra-EU BITs see for example Dimopoulos (2011); Eeckhout (2011), p. 62 et seq.; Bungenberg (2011), p. 133 et seq.; as well as the contributions in Bungenberg et al. (2011); and Bungenberg et al. (2013).

  74. 74.

    See, e.g., UNCTAD (2013b), p. 2 et seq.

  75. 75.

    On this perception see for example UNCTAD (2016), p. 112 (“Megaregional agreements could consolidate and streamline the IIA regime and help enhance the systemic consistency of the IIA regime, provided they replace prior bilateral IIAs between the parties […].”); UNCTAD (2013c), p. 105 et seq.; UNCTAD (2014), p. 121 et seq.; Alschner (2014), p. 273 et seq.

  76. 76.

    Generally thereto Harrison (2012), p. 933 et seq.; Pohl (2013), p. 7 et seq.

  77. 77.

    See also, e.g., Salacuse (2013), p. 400 (“Investment treaties generally provide that they shall be in force for 10 or 15 years.”); UNCTAD (2013a), p. 3.

  78. 78.

    See thereto UNCTAD (2013a), p. 3; Pohl (2013), p. 7 et seq.

  79. 79.

    Harrison (2012), p. 934.

  80. 80.

    Generally on this rather unique type of provisions see, e.g., Lavopa et al. (2013), p. 878 et seq.; Bolivar (2013); Nowrot (2016b), p. 241 et seq.

  81. 81.

    A rare example of a BIT stipulating an initial minimum period of application but no survival clause is provided by the respective agreement between Egypt and Latvia of 24 April 1997.

  82. 82.

    See thereto Nowrot (2016b), p. 254 et seq.

  83. 83.

    UNCTAD (2013a), 4 fn. 10 (“open question”); Ripinsky (2013), p. 620 (“a debatable issue not yet tested in arbitral practice”); Roberts (2014), p. 23 (“ongoing controversies”); Lekkas and Tzanakopoulos (2014), 317 fn. 27 (“interesting problems”).

  84. 84.

    The issue itself has already been raised, albeit without receiving further treatment, for example by Wälde (2010), p. 16 (“it is not clear what the situation of an investor who invested on the basis of an existing BIT would be if both governments agreed to end the treaty, and even less clear what the impact of an agreed termination of the treaty would be on an ongoing case”); and Volterra (2010), p. 220 (“What happens if two State parties to an investment treaty decide to terminate the treaty with no continuing effect, and they make that agreement as between themselves, as of the moment they reach the agreement? Are there any continuing rights that accrue to the investor? It is hard to see how there would be.”). For a subsequent more in-depth evaluation of the applicable legal framework see, e.g., Voon and Mitchell (2011), p. 523 et seq.; Harrison (2012), p. 941 et seq.; Braun (2012), p. 168 et seq.; Lavopa et al. (2013), p. 881 et seq.; Sourgens (2013), p. 379 et seq.; Voon et al. (2014), p. 451 et seq.; Peters (2014), p. 288 et seq.; Roberts (2015), p. 403 et seq.; Wackernagel (2016), p. 11 et seq.; Nowrot (2016b), p. 245 et seq.

  85. 85.

    See thereto also already Sect. 2.

  86. 86.

    Vandevelde (2005), p. 193.

  87. 87.

    Generally on this perception see also, e.g., Marboe (2013), p. 232 et seq.; Schill (2014), p. 116 et seq.; Schill (2009), p. 88 et seq., with further references.

  88. 88.

    The text of this draft convention is for example reprinted in: Tams and Tietje (2012), p. 358 et seq. See thereto also, e.g., Schwarzenberger (1960).

  89. 89.

    On this perception see for example Alschner (2013), p. 457 (“On the historical front, [friendship, commerce and navigation (FCN)] treaties inspired the terms of the Abs-Shawcross Draft Convention, upon which the first BITs were modeled.”) (emphasis in the original); Vandevelde (2005), p. 172 (“the protections provided by the BITs were similar to those that had been provided in the modern FCNs concluded by the United States”).

  90. 90.

    The currently applicable 2012 US Model BIT is for example reprinted in Tams and Tietje (2012), p. 432 et seq. See generally thereto Caplan and Sharpe (2013), p. 755.

  91. 91.

    For an earlier account of these influences exercised by the NAFTA investment regime see, e.g., Kinnear and Hansen (2005), p. 110 et seq.; see also more recently for example Berger (2013).

  92. 92.

    See also, e.g., Krajewski (2014), p. 3; Boor and Nowrot (2016), p. 95 et seq.

  93. 93.

    Generally thereto for example Lévesque and Newcombe (2013).

  94. 94.

    European Commission (2014).

  95. 95.

    On these consultations see, e.g., the concluding report by the European Commission, European Commission (2015).

  96. 96.

    European Union (2015).

  97. 97.

    See also, e.g., Hufbauer and Cimino-Isaacs (2015), p. 682.

  98. 98.

    On this perception see also for example already UNCTAD (2016), p. 114; Chaisse (2012), p. 148; Draper et al. (2014), p. 29; Fontanelli and Bianco (2014), p. 234; Henckels (2016), p. 29.

  99. 99.

    See Sect. 2.

  100. 100.

    UNCTAD (2014), pp. 118 and 121.

  101. 101.

    Fontanelli and Bianco (2014), p. 234.

  102. 102.

    Joubin-Bret (2013), p. 294.

  103. 103.

    Hindelang and Krajewski (2016), p. 383.

  104. 104.

    Chaisse (2012), p. 148.

  105. 105.

    Trakman (2014), pp. 1 and 2.

  106. 106.

    Bungenberg (2013), p. 275.

  107. 107.

    Hamilton (2014), p. 92.

  108. 108.

    Generally on the practical importance of model BITs in international investment law see, e.g., Clodfelter (2009); Salacuse (2013), p. 360 et seq.; Newcombe (2013), p. 19 et seq. Specifically on the possible development and content of a respective EU Model BIT see for example Hoffmeister and Alexandru (2014).

  109. 109.

    Schill (2016a), p. 1 (“With these starkly contrasting visions about the future of [investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS)], it is probably no exaggeration to say that we are at a historic juncture regarding the future structure of investment governance. While the United States, as indicated by TPP, favors in essence a continuation of the loosely institutionalized system of one-off arbitration, although with additional safeguards and subject to transparency, Europe aims at building new institutions. Whose approach will succeed is not only a matter of bargaining power on both sides of the Atlantic; it will be key to whose vision for governing international investment relations is more attractive at a global level.”); see also Schill (2016b), p. 120 et seq.

  110. 110.

    On this perception see for example the respective observations by Schreuer (2008), p. 5 (“The future of investment arbitration is by no means certain. The enthusiasm of States, especially those that have been on the losing side in several major cases, has been severely dampened. Even former champions of investors’ rights, such as the United States, have lost much of their eagerness after finding themselves in the role of respondents.”); as well as, e.g., Salacuse (2015), p. 19 (“Thus, despite the fact that the international investment regime is founded on 3300 treaties solemnly concluded by some 180 different states, one cannot assume that it will endure.”); Vadi (2016), p. 64 et seq.; Sornarajah (2015), p. 45 et seq.

  111. 111.

    See thereto UNCTAD (2014), p. 114; Nowrot (2016b), p. 234 et seq.

  112. 112.

    Nowrot (2010), p. 5 et seq., with further references.

  113. 113.

    See in this regard also for example Hindelang and Krajewski (2016), p. 383 (“Could mega-regional agreements such as TPP and TTIP, with investment chapters including ISDS, become the nucleus of a (new attempt towards a) multilateral investment protection agreement? For the time being, no such initiative has been launched and there are no governments or international organizations openly pursuing such an agenda. This does not seem surprising. In light of the legitimacy crisis and the many challenges international investment law is currently facing and the general fatigue of States with multilateralism, the situation remains too fragile and unpredictable to expect bold calls for new multilateral initiatives on investment law.”).

  114. 114.

    On this perception see also already Sect. 2.

  115. 115.

    Pauwelyn (2014a), p. 375; see also Pauwelyn (2014b), p. 13.

  116. 116.

    Pauwelyn (2014a), p. 381; see also, e.g., Moranis (2016), p. 110 (“Individual investment agreements are laboratories for the regime. […] The regime can adapt through changes in its constituent parts and may do so rapidly in light of the ease of bilateral negotiations.”).

  117. 117.

    Alvarez (2009), p. 80; see also Pauwelyn (2014a), p. 375 et seq.; Pauwelyn (2014b), p. 13 et seq., with further references.

  118. 118.

    See thereto for example Pauwelyn et al. (2014) with further references.

  119. 119.

    See Sects. 2 and 3.2.2.

  120. 120.

    See Sect. 3.1.2.

  121. 121.

    See thereto also, e.g., Alvarez (2011), p. 418 (“How much power do or should Governments retain once they establish treaties to protect investors’ settled or legitimate expectations against their own actions and have accepted the competence of third-party arbitrators to decide such matters?”); Roberts (2014), p. 70 (“it implicates fundamental, but unresolved, questions about what rights have been retained by home and host states acting individually and the treaty parties acting collectively”).

References

  • Allee T, Peinhardt C (2014) Evaluating three explanations for the design of bilateral investment treaties. World Polit 66:47–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alschner W (2013) Americanization of the BIT universe: the influence of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN) treaties on modern investment treaty law. Goettingen J Int Law 5:455–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Alschner W (2014) Regionalism and overlap in investment treaty law: towards consolidation or contradiction? J Int Econ Law 17:271–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez J (2009) A BIT on custom. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 42:17–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez J (2011) The public international law regime governing international investment. Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aust A (2013) Modern treaty law and practice, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagwell KW, Mavroidis PC (eds) (2011) Preferential trade agreements: a law and economics analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbee I, Lester S (2014) The TPP and the future of trade agreements. Latin Am J Int Trade Law 2:207–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner J (2016) Wie ist die Einbettung von investitionsschützenden Regeln in auch andere Politikbereiche umfassende Abkommen, insbesondere Freihandelsabkommen, zu bewerten? Kölner Schrift zum Wirtschaftsrecht 7:84–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger A (2013) Investment rules in Chinese PTIAs: a partial “NAFTA-ization”. In: Hofmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 297–334

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bhagwati J (2008) Termites in the trading system: how preferential agreements undermine free trade. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Binder C (2013) An international law approach to interactions between preferential trade and investment agreements and the BIT world. In: Hofmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 71–80

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bolivar G (2013) The effect of survival and withdrawal clauses in investment treaties: protection of investments in Latin America. In: Trakman LE, Ranieri NW (eds) Regionalism in international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 162–181

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnitcha J (2014) Substantive protection under investment treaties. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boor F, Nowrot K (2016) Die Konkretisierung völkervertragsrechtlicher Investitionsschutzstandards: “Schlossallee” oder “Badstraße” auf dem Weg zu mehr Rechtssicherheit? Kölner Schrift zum Wirtschaftsrecht 7:91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgen CJ (2012) Treaty conflicts and normative fragmentation. In: Hollis DB (ed) The Oxford guide to treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 448–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle A, Chinkin C (2007) The making of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • de Brabandere E (2013) Co-existence, complementarity or conflict? Interaction between preferential trade and investment agreements and bilateral investment treaties. In: Hofmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 37–70

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Braun TR (2012) Ausprägungen der Globalisierung: Der Investor als partielles Subjekt im Internationalen Investitionsrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brower CN, Sharpe JK (2003) Multiple and conflicting international arbitral awards. J World Invest 4:211–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner JS, Goodnow JJ, Austin GA (1956) A study of thinking. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M (2011) The politics of the European Union’s investment treaty making. In: Broude T, Busch ML, Porges A (eds) The politics of international economic law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 133–161

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M (2013) Preferential trade and investment agreements and regionalism. In: Hofmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 269–288

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hindelang S (eds) (2011) International investment law and EU law. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Reinisch A, Tietje C (eds) (2013) EU and international investment agreements: open questions and remaining challenges. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgstaller M (2011) The future of bilateral investment treaties of EU member states. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hindelang S (eds) International investment law and EU law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 55–77

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan LM, Sharpe JK (2013) United States. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 755–852

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaisse J (2012) TTP agreement: towards innovations in investment rule-making. In: Lim CL, Elms DK, Low P (eds) The trans-pacific partnership: a quest for a twenty-first-century agreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 147–156

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chapaux V (2011) Article 54 Convention of 1969. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, vol II. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1236–1245

    Google Scholar 

  • Clodfelter MA (2009) The adaption of states to the changing world of investment protection through model BITs. ICSID Rev – Foreign Invest Law J 24:165–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordonier Segger MC, Gehring MW, Newcombe A (eds) (2011) Sustainable development in world investment law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottier T (2014) International economic law in transition from trade liberalization to trade regulation. J Int Econ Law 17:671–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2014) Chance, order, change: the course of international law. The Hague Academy of International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremades BM, Madalena I (2008) Parallel proceedings in international arbitration. Arbitr Int 24:507–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahm G, Delbrück J, Wolfrum R (2002) Völkerrecht, vol I/3, 2nd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Dattu R (2000) A journey from Havana to Paris: the fifty-year quest for the elusive multilateral agreement on investment. Fordham Int Law J 24:275–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimopoulos A (2011) EU foreign investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dodge WS (2006) Res Judicata. In: Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. http://www.mpepil.com. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dörr O (2012) Article 31. In: Dörr O, Schmalenbach K (eds) Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 521–570

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Draper P, Lacey S, Ramkolowan Y (2014) Mega-regional trade agreements: implications for the African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries. ECIPE Occasional Paper No. 2/2014. http://www.ecipe.org/app/uploads/2014/12/OCC22014_.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Dubava I (2014) The future of international investment protection law: the promotion of sustainable (economic) development as a public good. In: Cremona M, Hilpold P, Lavranos N et al (eds) Reflections on the constitutionalisation of international economic law: Liber Amicorum for Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 389–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckhout P (2011) EU external relations law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014) Public consultation on modalities for investment protection and ISDS in TTIP. 27 Mar 2014. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/march/tradoc_152280.pdf. Accessed 2 Sept 2016

  • European Commission (2015) Commission Staff Working Document: Report, Online Public Consultation on Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP). 13 Jan 2015, SWD(2015) 3 final. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_153044.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • European Union (2015) Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: European Union’s proposal for investment protection and resolution of investment disputes. 12 Nov 2015. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/november/tradoc_153955.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Finke J (2014) Regime-collisions: tensions between treaties (and how to solve them). In: Tams CJ, Tzanakopoulos A, Zimmermann A (eds) Research handbook on the law of treaties. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 415–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontanelli F, Bianco G (2014) Converging towards NAFTA: an analysis of FTA investment chapters in the European Union and the United States. Stanford J Int Law 50:211–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner R (2015) Treaty interpretation, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Giegerich T (2012) Article 59. In: Dörr O, Schmalenbach K (eds) Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1011–1020

    Google Scholar 

  • Griebel J (2016) Umweltschutz und andere besondere staatliche Gemeinwohlinteressen im europäischen Investitionsschutz: Die Diskussion um ein right to regulate. Kölner Schrift zum Wirtschaftsrecht 7:106–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton DS (2014) America’s mega-regional trade diplomacy: comparing TTP and TTIP. Int Spectator – Ital J Int Aff 49:81–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J (2012) The life and death of BITs: legal issues concerning survival clauses and the termination of investment treaties. J World Invest Trade 13:928–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henckels C (2016) Protecting regulatory autonomy through greater precision in investment treaties: the TPP, CETA, and TTIP. J Int Econ Law 19:27–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindelang S (2012) Circumventing primacy of EU law and the CJEU’s judicial monopoly by resorting to dispute resolution mechanisms provided for in inter-se treaties? The case of intra-EU investment arbitration. Leg Issues Econ Integrat 39:179–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindelang S, Krajewski M (2016) Conclusion and outlook: whither international investment law? In: Hindelang S, Krajewski M (eds) Shifting paradigms in international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 377–391

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekman BM, Kostecki MM (2009) The political economy of the world trading system, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F, Alexandru G (2014) A first glimpse of light on the emerging invisible EU model BIT. J World Invest Trade 15:379–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn H, Mavroidis PC, Sapir A (2010) Beyond the WTO? An anatomy of EU and US preferential trade agreements. World Econ 33:1565–1588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hufbauer GC, Cimino-Isaacs C (2015) How will TPP and TTIP change the WTO system? J Int Econ Law 18:679–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob M (2013) Technique and contents of international investment treaties: can the form affect the substance? In: Hofmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 81–90

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jenks WC (1953) The conflict of law-making treaties. Br Yearb Int Law 30:401–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings R, Watts A (1992) Oppenheim’s international law, vol I, Parts 2 to 4, 9th edn. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Joubin-Bret A (2013) Preferential trade and investment agreements and regionalism: a stepping stone towards a multilateral set of investment rules or another type of noodles in the spaghetti bowl? In: Hofmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 289–296

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Karmakar S (2014) Rulemaking in super-RTAs: implications for China and India. Bruegel Working Paper No. 2014/03. http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/publications/WP_2014_03_.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Kinnear M, Hansen R (2005) The influence of NAFTA Chapter 11 in the BIT landscape. UC Davis J Int Law Policy 12:101–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2013) International law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kohen MG, Heathcote S (2011) Article 42 Convention of 1969. In: Corten O, Klein P (eds) The Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, vol II. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1015–1028

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2014) Kurzgutachten zu Investitionsschutz und Investor-Staat-Streitbeilegung im Transatlantischen Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaftsabkommen (TTIP) im Auftrag der Bundestagsfraktion Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. 1 May 2014. http://www.gruene-bundestag.de/fileadmin/media/gruenebundestag_de/Veranstaltungen/140505-TTIP/Kurzgutachten_Investititionsschutz_TTIP_Endfassung_layout.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Kurtz J (2014) On the evolution and slow convergence of international trade and investment law. In: Sacerdoti G, Acconci P, Valenti M et al (eds) General interests of host states in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 104–129

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz J (2016) The WTO and international investment law: converging systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lavopa FM, Barreiros LE, Bruno MV (2013) How to kill a BIT and not die trying: legal and political challenges of denouncing or renegotiating bilateral investment treaties. J Int Econ Law 16:869–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lekkas SI, Tzanakopoulos A (2014) Pacta sunt servanda versus flexibility in the suspension and termination of treaties. In: Tams CJ, Tzanakopoulos A, Zimmermann A (eds) Research handbook on the law of treaties. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 312–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester S, Barbee I (2013) The challenge of cooperation: regulatory trade barriers in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. J Int Econ Law 16:847–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lévesque C, Newcombe A (2013) Canada. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 53–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Lim CL, Elms DK, Low P (2012) What is “High-Quality, Twenty-First Century”, anyway? In: Lim CL, Elms DK, Low P (eds) The trans-pacific partnership: a quest for a twenty-first-century agreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1967) Soziologie als Theorie sozialer Systeme. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 19:615–644

    Google Scholar 

  • de Ly F, Klein B, Bernasconi-Osterwalder N et al (2005) Who wins and who loses in investment arbitration? Are investors and host states on a level playing field? J World Invest Trade 6:59–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Manger MS (2013) A quantitative perspective on trends in IIA rules. In: de Mestral A, Lévesque C (eds) Improving international investment agreements. Routledge, London, pp 76–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann H (2013) Reconceptualizing international investment law: its role in sustainable development. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:521–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Marboe I (2013) Bilateral free trade and investment agreements: “Stumbling Blocks” or “Building Blocks” of multilateralism? In: Hofmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 229–242

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mariani P (2014) The future of BITs between EU member states: are intra-EU BITs compatible with the internal market? In: Sacerdoti G, Acconci P, Valenti M et al (eds) General interests of host states in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 265–286

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matsushita M, Schoenbaum TJ, Mavroidis PC et al (2015) The world trade organization: law, practice, and policy, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Matz-Lück N (2006) Treaties, conflict clauses. In: Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. http://www.mpepil.com. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Matz-Lück N (2010) Treaties, conflicts between. In: Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. http://www.mpepil.com. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Melo Araujo B (2014) The EU’s deep trade agenda: stumbling block or stepping stone towards multilateral liberalisation? Eur Yearb Int Econ Law 5:263–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Melo Araujo B (2016) The EU deep trade agenda: law and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Mestral A, Falsafi A (2013) Investment provisions in regional trade agreements: a more efficient solution? In: de Mestral A, Lévesque C (eds) Improving international investment agreements. Routledge, London, pp 115–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R, Pauwelyn J (2011) Conflict of norms or conflict of laws? Different techniques in the fragmentation of international law. In: Broude T, Shany Y (eds) Multi-sourced equivalent norms in international law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 19–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles K (2010) Reconceptualising international investment law: bringing the public interest into private business. In: Lewis MK, Frankel S (eds) International economic law and national autonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 295–319

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moranis M (2016) Between power and procedure: the changing balance of investment treaty protection. Arbitr Int 32:81–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouyal LW (2016) International investment law and the right to regulate: a human rights perspective. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcombe A (2013) Developments in IIA treaty-making. In: de Mestral A, Lévesque C (eds) Improving international investment agreements. Routledge, London, pp 15–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowrot K (2006) Normative Ordnungsstruktur und private Wirkungsmacht. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowrot K (2010) International investment law and the Republic of Ecuador: from arbitral bilateralism to judicial regionalism. Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht Heft 96, May 2010. http://telc.jura.uni-halle.de/sites/default/files/altbestand/Heft_96.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Nowrot K (2013) NAFTA dispute resolution: Zwischen Diplomatie und Recht. In: Ehlers D, Terhechte J, Wolffgang HM et al (eds) Aktuelle Entwicklungen des Rechtsschutzes und der Streitbeilegung im Außenwirtschaftsrecht. Fachmedien Recht und Wirtschaft, Frankfurt am Main, pp 81–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowrot K (2014) How to include environmental protection, human rights and sustainability in international investment law? J World Invest Trade 15:612–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowrot K (2015) Steuerungssubjekte und -mechanismen im Internationalen Wirtschaftsrecht (einschließlich regionale Wirtschaftsintegration). In: Tietje C (ed) Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, 2nd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 67–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowrot K (2016a) Global public authority in today’s international economic legal order: towards substantive and institutional convergence à la Pacem in Terris? In: Justenhoven H-G, O’Connell ME (eds) Peace through law: reflections on Pacem in Terris from philosophy, law, theology, and political science. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 187–214

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nowrot K (2016b) Termination and renegotiation of international investment agreements. In: Hindelang S, Krajewski M (eds) Shifting paradigms in international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 227–265

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Odendahl K (2012) Article 30. In: Dörr O, Schmalenbach K (eds) Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 505–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2003) Conflict of norms in public international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2006) Fragmentation of international law. In: Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. http://www.mpepil.com. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Pauwelyn J (2014a) At the edge of chaos? Foreign investment law as a complex adaptive system, how it emerged and how it can be reformed. ICSID Rev – Foreign Invest Law J 29:372–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2014b) Rational design or accidental evolution? The emergence of international investment law. In: Douglas Z, Pauwelyn J, Viñuales JE (eds) The foundations of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 11–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J, Alschner W (2015) Forget about the WTO: the network of relations between PTAs and double PTAs. In: Dür A, Elsig M (eds) Trade cooperation: the purpose, design and effects of preferential trade agreements. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 497–532

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J, Wessel RA, Wouters J (2014) When structures become shackles: stagnation and dynamics in international lawmaking. Eur J Int Law 25:733–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2014) Jenseits der Menschenrechte. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl J (2013) Temporal validity of international investment agreements. OECD Working Papers on International Investment No. 2013/04, OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3tsjsl5fvh-en. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Puig S, Kinnear M (2010) NAFTA chapter eleven at fifteen: contributions to a systematic approach in investment arbitration. ICSID Rev – Foreign Invest Law J 25:225–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranganathan A (2014) Responding to deliberately created treaty conflicts. In: Tams CJ, Tzanakopoulos A, Zimmermann A (eds) Research handbook on the law of treaties. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 447–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranieri NW (2013) Investors’ rights, legal concepts, and public policy in the NAFTA context. In: Trakman LE, Ranieri NW (eds) Regionalism in international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 400–451

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2004) The use and limits of Res Judicata and Lis Pendens as procedural tools to avoid conflicting dispute settlement outcomes. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 3:37–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2009) Investment protection and dispute settlement in preferential trade agreements: a challenge to BITs? ICSID Rev – Foreign Invest Law J 24:416–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2011) International courts and tribunals, multiple jurisdiction. In: Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. http://www.mpepil.com. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Reinisch A (2012) Articles 30 and 59 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties in action: the decisions on jurisdiction in the Eastern Sugar and Eureko investment arbitrations. Leg Issues Econ Integrat 39:157–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripinsky S (2013) Russia. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 593–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts A (2015) Triangular treaties: the extent and limits of investment treaty rights. Harvard Int Law J 56:353–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts A (2014) State-to-state investment treaty arbitration: a hybrid theory of interdependent rights and shared interpretive authority. Harvard Int Law J 55:1–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Salacuse JW (2015) The law of investment treaties, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Salacuse JW (2013) The three laws of international investment. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill SW (2016a) Editorial: US versus EU leadership in global investment governance. J World Invest Trade 17:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schill SW (2016b) Sind Regelungen zur Investor-Staat-Streitbeilegung in EU-Freihandelsabkommen sinnvoll? Kölner Schrift zum Wirtschaftsrecht 7:115–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schill SW (2014) Ordering paradigms in international investment law: bilateralism-multilateralism-multilateralization. In: Douglas Z, Pauwelyn J, Viñuales JE (eds) The foundations of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 109–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill SW (2009) The multilateralization of international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C (2008) Introduction. In: Reinisch A, Knahr C (eds) International investment law in context. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, pp 3–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenberger G (1960) The Abs-Shawcross Draft Convention on investments abroad: a critical commentary. J Public Law 9:147–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Senti R (2014) Regional trade agreements: ‘Stepping Stones’ or ‘Stumbling Blocks’ of the WTO? In: Cremona M, Hilpold P, Lavranos N et al (eds) Reflections on the constitutionalisation of international economic law: Liber Amicorum for Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 441–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Shany Y (2003) The competing jurisdictions of international courts and tribunals. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Shany Y (2007) Regulating jurisdictional relations between national and international courts. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2014) International law, 7th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Söderlund C (2007) Intra-EU BIT investment protection and the EC treaty. J Int Arbitr 24:455–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Sornarajah M (2015) Resistance and change in the international law on foreign investment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sornarajah M (2010) The international law on foreign investment, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sourgens FG (2013) Keep the faith: investment protection following the denunciation of international investment agreements. Santa Clara J Int Law 11:335–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Spears SA (2010) The quest for policy space in a new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subedi SP (2016) International investment law, 3rd edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams CJ, Tietje C (eds) (2012) Documents in international economic law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietje C (2009) The future of international investment protection: stress in the system? ICSID Rev – Foreign Invest Law J 24:457–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titi A (2014) The right to regulate in international investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin JL, Busch ML (2010) A BIT is better than a lot: bilateral investment treaties and preferential trade agreements. World Polit 62:1–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trakman LE (2014) The status of investor-state arbitration: resolving investment disputes under the transpacific partnership agreement. J World Trade 48:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Trebilcock M, Howse R, Eliason A (2013) The regulation of international trade, 4th edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD (2016) World Investment Report 2016: investor nationality: policy challenges. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2016_en.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • UNCTAD (2015) Investment policy framework for sustainable development, 2015 edition. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2015d5_en.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014: investing in the SDGs: an action plan. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • UNCTAD (2013a) International investment policymaking in transition: challenges and opportunities of treaty renewal. IIA Issues Note No. 4, June 2013. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2013d9_en.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • UNCTAD (2013b) The rise of regionalism in international investment policymaking: consolidation or complexity? IIA Issues Note No. 3, June 2013. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2013d8_en.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • UNCTAD (2013c) World Investment Report 2013: global value chains: investment and trade for development. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2013_en.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • UNCTAD (2012) World Investment Report 2012: towards a new generation of investment policies. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2012_embargoed_en.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • UNCTAD (2011) World Investment Report 2011: non-equity modes of international production and development. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2011_en.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • UNCTAD (2008) World Investment Report 2008: transnational corporations and the infrastructure challenge. http://unctad.org/en/Docs/wir2008_en.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • UNCTAD (2006) Investment provisions in economic integration agreements. http://unctad.org/en/docs/iteiit200510_en.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Vadi V (2016) Analogies in international investment law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vandevelde KJ (2005) A brief history of international investment agreements. UC Davis J Int Law Policy 12:157–194

    Google Scholar 

  • VanDuzer JA, Simons P, Mayeda G (2012) Integrating sustainable development into international investment agreements: a guide for developing countries. www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/6th_annual_forum_commonwealth_guide.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Volterra R (2010) International law commission articles on state responsibility and investor-state arbitration: do investors have rights? ICSID Rev – Foreign Invest Law J 25:218–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voon T, Mitchell A (2011) Time to quit? Assessing international investment claims against plain tobacco packaging in Australia. J Int Econ Law 14:515–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voon T, Mitchell A, Munro J (2014) Parting ways: the impact of mutual termination of investment treaties on investor rights. ICSID Rev – Foreign Invest Law J 29:451–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel C (2016) The twilight of the BITs? EU judicial proceedings, the consensual termination of intra-EU BITs and why that matters for international law. Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht Heft 140, January 2016. http://telc.jura.uni-halle.de/sites/default/files/BeitraegeTWR/Heft%20140.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Wälde TW (2009) Interpreting investment treaties: experiences and examples. In: Binder C, Kriebaum U, Reinisch A et al (eds) International investment law for the 21st century: essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 724–781

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wälde TW (2010) Procedural challenges in investment arbitration under the shadow of the dual role of the state. Arbitr Int 26:3–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeramantry JR (2012) Treaty interpretation in investment arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehland H (2009) Intra-EU investment agreements and arbitration: is European Community law an obstacle? Int Comp Law Q 58:297–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wehland H (2013) The coordination of multiple proceedings in investment treaty arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2011) World Trade Report 2011: the WTO and preferential trade agreements: from co-existence to coherence. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report11_e.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Wu M (2014) The scope and limits of trade’s influence in shaping the evolving international investment regime. In: Douglas Z, Pauwelyn J, Viñuales JE (eds) The foundations of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 169–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Yotova R (2013) The new EU competence in foreign direct investment and intra-EU investment treaties: does the emperor have new clothes? In: Baetens F (ed) Investment law within international law: integrationist perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 387–414

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler AR (2013) Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements (PTIAs) and the bilateralism/multilateralism divide. In: Hofmann R, Schill SW, Tams CJ (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 187–210

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Karsten Nowrot

Authors
  1. Karsten Nowrot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karsten Nowrot .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

    Thilo Rensmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nowrot, K. (2017). Interactions Between Investment Chapters in Mega-Regionals and Bilateral Investment Treaties. In: Rensmann, T. (eds) Mega-Regional Trade Agreements. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56663-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56663-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56662-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56663-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation